Citation Nr: 0610834
Decision Date: 04/16/06 Archive Date: 04/26/06
DOCKET NO. 98-00 817 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul,
Minnesota
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing
loss.
2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.
3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.
4. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of dental
trauma.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: AMVETS
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
J. W. Loeb, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from September 1969 to July
1971; his service occupation was noted to be vehicle
mechanic. This case came before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 1997 rating decision
of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office
(RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss,
tinnitus, hypertension, and residuals of dental trauma are
not plausible.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The veteran has not submitted evidence of a well-grounded
claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss,
tinnitus, hypertension, and residuals of dental trauma.
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
As a preliminary matter, the Board must determine whether the
appellant has submitted evidence of a well-grounded claim.
If he has not, his claim must fail, and VA is not obligated
to assist him in the development of the claim. 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(a); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91 (1993); Tirpak
v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609 (1992).
The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(Court) has stated repeatedly that 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a)
unequivocally places an initial burden on a claimant to
produce evidence that a claim is well grounded. See Grivois
v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 136 (1994); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.
App. 91, at 92 (1993); Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609,
at 610-611 (1992). A well-grounded claim is a plausible
claim, that is, a claim which is meritorious on its own or
capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App.
78, 81 (1990). The Court has stated that the quality and
quantity of evidence required to meet this statutory burden
depends upon the issue presented by the claim. Grottveit at
92-93. Where a determinative issue involves medical
causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence
to the effect that the claim is plausible or possible is
required. Id.
Further, in order for a direct service connection claim to be
considered plausible, and therefore well grounded, there must
be evidence of both a current disability and evidence of a
relationship between that disability and an injury or disease
incurred in service or some other manifestation of the
disability during service. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.
App. 141, 143 (1992); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223,
225 (1992); Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992).
Service connection may be granted for disability resulting
from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by military
service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 1991). Impaired hearing
will be considered to be a disability when the auditory
threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000,
and 4000 hertz, in ISO units, is 40 decibels or greater; or
when the auditory thresholds for at least three of these
frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech
recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than
94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1999).
The veteran's claims file is rebuilt; service medical records
are unavailable despite VA attempt to locate them. Where
service medical records are unavailable, there is a
heightened duty to search for medical information from
alternative sources in order to reconstruct medical history.
See Jolley v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 37, 39-40 (1990); Cuevas
v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 543, 548 (1992). In the absence of
medical records, the Board will look to alternate forms of
evidence, including lay evidence, to make factual findings.
See Dixon v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 261 (1992).
The evidence on file includes private medical records
beginning in June 1978. Audiograms from June 1978 to
November 1991 reveal bilateral hearing loss beginning at 3000
hertz in the right ear and 4000 hertz in the left ear.
The veteran was hospitalized at a VA hospital in January and
February 1981 due to alcohol dependence. He complained
during hospitalization of sudden hearing loss after exposure
to artillery noise in service in 1970, which subsequently
improved but left him with residual decreased perception of
speech. Audiometric examination in January 1981 showed
moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss beginning at
3000 hertz in the right ear and severe sensorineural hearing
loss beginning at 4000 hertz in the left ear.
May 1983 outpatient records from Fridley Medical Center
reveal that the veteran's blood pressure was 164/100; it was
noted that the veteran had hypertension.
The medical records on file do not contain any complaints,
findings, or diagnoses of tinnitus or residuals of dental
trauma.
Although it is unfortunate that the veteran's service medical
records are unavailable, the Board notes that there is no
post-service medical evidence of bilateral hearing loss or
hypertension until several years after service discharge.
Moreover, there is no medical opinion on file linking either
the veteran's hearing loss or his hypertension to his
military service. Consequently, the veteran's claims for
entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss,
tinnitus, hypertension, and residuals of dental trauma are
not well grounded.
Although the veteran believes that he has current bilateral
hearing loss, tinnitus, hypertension, and residuals of dental
trauma as a result of service, he cannot meet his initial
burden of presenting a well-grounded claim by relying on his
own opinion as to medical matters, because he, as a lay
person, is not competent to offer medical opinions. See
Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App.492, 494-95 (1992).
Therefore, the veteran's claims for service connection for
bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, hypertension, and residuals
of dental trauma are not well grounded.
The Board views its foregoing discussion as sufficient to
inform the veteran of the elements necessary to complete an
application to reopen the above noted claims. Robinette v.
Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 79 (1995).
ORDER
Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.
Service connection for tinnitus is denied.
Service connection for hypertension is denied.
Service connection for residuals of dental trauma is denied.
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals